Faced with what seems
to be an increasing level of misleading rhetoric about conservative
positions on public policy issues, The National Center for Public
Policy Research has resolved to help bridge the gap between rhetoric
and reality.

Disclaimer: We freely acknowledge that
not all conservatives share every view related as "what
conservatives think," nor does every speaker of what our
editors perceive to be a left-wing comment think of themselves
as "liberal." However, unanimity is impossible on questions
such as these. We therefore offer our best judgment, and offer
apologies to anyone who believes we could have done better.

Persons with an opinion
on any of our judgments are welcome to write us at [email protected]. Be sure to tell us if you object
to having your comments reproduced, as we may otherwise post
an occasional comment on our blog.

Published by The National
Center for Public Policy Research

Photo of Valley Forge
National Historic Park by James Lemass

National Security: Should the
United Nations Authorize Use of Force?

The Left Says:

"The moral credibility of
the use of military force also depends heavily on whether there
is legitimate authority for using force to topple the Iraqi government.
In our judgment, decisions of such gravity require compliance
with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within
our nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably
by the U.N. Security Council."

In the letter
quoted above, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops takes the
position that some form of international approval is required
before a use of force by the U.S. government has "moral
credibility."

The #1 responsibility of the United States
government is the security of the United States and of the liberties
of its citizenry. This is a responsibility the United States
government simply cannot cede to a third party, even a membership
organization (such as the United Nations) to which the United
States belongs.

There are several factors to consider.

1) The government of the United States
is elected by the citizens of the United States and holds its
authority by the consent of the governed. The United Nations'
leadership is selected by the governments of member nations.
Individual Americans have no direct voice and have not consented
to be governed by the United Nations.

Even if the United Nations were a near-perfect
organization with goals and values identical to those of the
United States government, it would still be morally wrong for
the United States government to attempt to cede its authority
to a body not elected by the American people.

2) The security and welfare of the people
of the United States is the not the #1 priority of the United
Nations -- or even its tenth priority. Under even an idealistic
scenario under which the U.N. is functioning extremely well,
the U.N. is designed to promote peace -- not liberty. Working
well, the U.N. can help provide a mechanism under which international
disagreements can be negotiated to resolution short of war, but
it is in no position to defend any nation from an external threat.
Each nation -- not only the U.S. -- is expected to do that for
itself.

3) The U.N. Charter itself recognizes,
in Article 51, each nation's inherent right of self-defense.

4) On international force questions,
"U.N. approval" typically refers to the approval of
the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members. So, "U.N.
approval" for a U.S. use of force does not mean "widespread
international approval," but, rather, a lack of formal objection
from Britain, France, Russia and China. If the U.S. does not
have the moral authority to use force without international approval,
as the left suggests, how is it that just five of the roughly
200 nations in the world (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and
China) have this supposed authority, as long as they are acting
in concert? Either international approval is needed for "moral"
use of force, or it isn't.

5) Although the United States has, arguably,
more influence over U.N. operations than any other single nation
overall (not necessarily on any single issue), the U.N. cannot
fairly be described as a pro-American organization. It would
be insane for the people of the U.S. to put responsibility for
the security of the U.S. in the hands of an organization that
is not even pro-American.

6) The United Nations is neither competent
nor effective. Examples of U.N. failures are legion. Millions
-- literally -- have died who needn't have had the U.N. been
more competent at meeting its objectives as specified in the
U.N. charter. It not logical for us to trust our national security
to an organization with a record of breathtaking incompetence.

In short, responsibility for our national
defense rests with the U.S government, so the U.S. government
must have the authority to act.

The question of whether any use of force
is moral must be settled on the circumstances of the use, not
on the mechanism used to make the decision.